You are on page 1of 3

Opinion Rule: Expert witness

Bautista v. CA
GR No. 158015
Aug 11, 2004


A parcel of land, approximately 105sqm in size, located along Maceda st., Sampaloc
Manila, was owned by Cesar Morelos (Cesar) under TCT No. 27604. Cesar is the uncle of the
petitioner Laura Morelos Bautista (Bautista), being the brother of her mother, Rosario Morelos

Cesar was married to Rosario Duran (Duran) but did not have any children.
- Cesar died on April 15, 1982
- Rosario Died in 1972.

During their lifetimes, Cesar and Rosario entered in to a deed of sale in favor of Bautista,
the same was notarized by Luis de Guzman (de Guzman).

Later on, respondent Fernando Morelos (Fernando) allged that he was the illegitimate child of
Cesar with Agnelina Lim-Gue. He presented testimonies of expert witness, and alleged that the
deed of sale was a forgery.

- Francisco Cruz, Jr. – alleged that the signatures of the documents were too different
despite being only 5 days apart. March 31, 1982 & April 5, 1982
- Major Braulio Monge – alleged that there were different thumbmarks

Bautista countered that the deed of sale was valid as witnessed by Carmelita Marcelino

RTC ruled in favor of bautista

CA reversed the decision and held that the deed of sale was forged.

Whether the CA erred in giving credence to the expert witnesses

Yes, the CA erred and the RTC was correct.

It is well-settled that a duly notarized contract enjoys the prima facie presumption of
authenticity and due execution as well as the full faith and credence attached to a public instrument.
To overturn this legal presumption, evidence must be clear, convincing and more than merely
preponderant to establish that there was forgery that gave rise to a spurious contract.
As a general rule, forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive and
convincing evidence. The burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery. In Heirs of Severa P.
Gregorio v. Court of Appeals, we held that due to the technicality of the procedure involved in the
examination of the forged documents, the expertise of questioned document examiners is usually
helpful; however, resort to questioned document examiners is not mandatory and while probably
useful, they are not indispensable in examining or comparing handwriting.

Hence, a finding of forgery does not depend entirely on the testimony of handwriting
experts. Although such testimony may be useful, the judge still exercises independent judgment on
the issue of authenticity of the signatures under scrutiny; he cannot rely on the mere testimony of
the handwriting expert.

The authenticity of signatures is not a highly technical issue in the same sense that questions
concerning, e.g., quantum physics or topology or molecular biology, would constitute matters of a
highly technical nature. The opinion of a handwriting expert on the genuineness of a questioned
signature is certainly much less compelling upon a judge than an opinion rendered by a specialist on
a highly technical issue in the case at bar, the presumption of validity and regularity prevails over
allegations of forgery and fraud. As against direct evidence consisting of the testimony of a witness
who was physically present at the signing of the contract and who had personal knowledge thereof,
the testimony of an expert witness constitutes indirect or circumstantial evidence at best. Carmelita
Marcelino, the witness to the Deed of Absolute Sale, confirmed the genuineness, authenticity and
due execution thereof. Having been physically present to see the decedent Cesar Morelos and
petitioner Laura Bautista affix their signatures on the document, the weight of evidence
preponderates in favor of petitioners.

Witness Francisco Cruz, Jr. failed to establish the fact that the signature on the Deed of
Absolute Sale was not that of Cesar Morelos. He merely concluded that the document was a forgery
without citing any factual basis for arriving at that conclusion. Cruz did not point out distinguishing
marks, characteristics and discrepancies in and between genuine and false specimens of writing,
which would ordinarily escape detection by an ordinary lay person.

When the trial court and the appellate court arrived at divergent factual assessments in
their respective decisions and the bases therefor refer to documents made available to the scrutiny
of both courts, the well-settled rule that factual findings of trial courts deserve respect and even
finality will not apply.17 In the case at bar, the varying factual assessments pertained to the
authenticity of the signature of the late Cesar Morelos on the questioned Deed of Absolute Sale
conveying the 105-square meter property in favor of his niece, Laura Bautista.

In Jimenez v. Commission on Ecumenical Mission and Relations of the United Presbyterian

Church in the United States of America, we held that the authenticity of a questioned signature
cannot be determined solely upon its general characteristics, similarities or dissimilarities with the
genuine signature. Dissimilarities as regards spontaneity, rhythm, pressure of the pen, loops in the
mind, feelings and nerves, and the kind of pen and paper used. These play an important role on the
general appearance of the signature. Unless, therefore, there is, in a given case, absolute absence,
or manifest dearth, of direct or circumstantial competent evidence on the character of a questioned
handwriting, much weight should not be given to characteristic similarities, or dissimilarities,
between a questioned handwriting and an authentic one.

Besides, a notarial document is evidence of the facts in the clear unequivocal manner
therein expressed and has in its favor the presumption of regularity.19 The authenticity and due
execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale must therefore be upheld.

As to the alleged insufficient consideration of the sale of the property, the mere inadequacy
of the price does not affect its validity when both parties are in a position to form an independent
judgment concerning the transaction,20 unless fraud, mistake or undue influence indicative of a
defect in consent is present.21 A contract may consequently be annulled on the ground of vitiated
consent and not due to the inadequacy of the price. In the case at bar, however, no evidence to
prove fraud, mistake or undue influence indicative of vitiated consent was presented other than the
respondent’s self-serving allegations